The role of error processing in the contextual interference effect during the training of perceptual-cognitive skills.

Abstract

The contextual interference (CI) effect refers to the learning benefits that occur from a random compared with blocked practice order. In this article, the cognitive effort explanation for the CI effect was examined by investigating the role of error processing. In 2 experiments, a perceptual-cognitive task was used in which participants anticipated 3 different tennis skills across a pretest, 3 practice sessions, and retention test. During practice, the skills were presented in either a random or blocked practice order. In Experiment 1, cognitive effort was examined using a probe reaction time (RT) task. In Experiment 2, cognitive effort was manipulated for 2 groups by inserting a cognitively demanding secondary task into the intertrial interval. The CI effect was found in both experiments as the random groups displayed superior learning in the retention test compared with the blocked groups. Cognitive effort during practice was greater in random compared to blocked practice groups in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, greater decrements in secondary task performance following an error were reported for the random group when compared with the blocked group. The suggestion is that not only the frequent switching of tasks in randomized orders causes increased cognitive effort and the CI effect, but it is also error processing in combination with task switching. Findings extend the cognitive effort explanation for the CI effect and propose an alternative hypothesis highlighting the role of error processing.

Interleaved practice benefits implicit sequence learning and transfer

“…Recent research indicates that frequent error processing in addition to task switching increases cognitive effort and may encourage implicit learning (Broadbent et al, 2017). In both experiments presented here we found that those in the interleaved condition were less accurate than those in the blocked condition on Day 1, which may lend some credence to the theory that frequent error processing may occur with high CI (Broadbent et al, 2017).…”

“…Previous research showing increased levels of cognitive activity with interleaved practice as compared to blocked practice lends some support to this theory (Li & Wright, 2000). Recent findings extend this idea, suggesting that high cognitive effort seen in interleaved practice may be partially due to increased error processing as well as task-switching (Broadbent et al, 2017). Following an error, greater cognitive activity could be attributed to an individual updating and correcting a rule as well as retrieving information for the upcoming task.…”

“…Recent research indicates that frequent error processing in addition to task switching increases cognitive effort and may encourage implicit learning (Broadbent et al, 2017). In both experiments presented here we found that those in the interleaved condition were less accurate than those in the blocked condition on Day 1, which may lend some credence to the theory that frequent error processing may occur with high CI (Broadbent et al, 2017). However, on Day 2 of Experiment 1, accuracy did not differ between the two conditions, and we did not observe the costs normally associated with interleaved practice, consistent with past research (Hodges et al, 2014) which may reflect a general learning benefit of interleaving that results in improved skill acquisition (Kim et al, 2016(Kim et al, , 2018.…”

Lack of spacing effects during piano learning

“…Deliberate introduction of contextual interference decreases performance during motor skill acquisition and improves later retention [ 11 ]; however, too much contextual interference reduces retention performance [ 12 ], indicating that some degree of contextual interference is desirable, while too much is undesirable. Two theories have been developed to explain contextual interference effects: elaborative processing and action plan reconstruction [ 13 – 14 ]. Elaborative processing is based on changes in the number of inter- and intra-task comparisons, which can be manipulated by deliberately introducing additional tasks in working memory, such as through frequent task changes [ 15 ].…”

“…Elaborative processing is based on changes in the number of inter- and intra-task comparisons, which can be manipulated by deliberately introducing additional tasks in working memory, such as through frequent task changes [ 15 ]. Action plan reconstruction is activated when a motor skill has left working memory, which requires recall of the action plan from long-term memory before the action can be performed [ 14 ]. A contextual interference theory that combines neural and behavioral data suggests a role for both elaboration and reconstruction processes [ 16 ].…”